|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 150 responses total. |
novomit
|
|
response 82 of 150:
| 
Jul 26 14:53 UTC 2003 |
Not having a telly, I canna comment.
|
keesan
|
|
response 83 of 150:
|
Jul 26 17:57 UTC 2003 |
My two exceptionally nice neighbors are teaching their daughter to call them
two different words for mama. As far as I can tell, they have a really stable
relationship. On my block and within two houses around the corner the
relationships are as follows:
1. Young couple has baby, husband leaves.
2. Couple has two kids, waits ten years, one more kid, husband leaves.
3. Young couple without kids splits up.
4. COuple with two teenagers splits up. Daughter and father stay in the
house.
5. Couple in their thirties who have known each other 8 years marries and
has two kids. When the older kid is 6, husband announces he has been in love
with another women since before the second child was conceived, and moves out
(after draggin wife through several years of pointless therapy first to prove
something, she has no idea what).
6. Couple in thirties and forties splits up after 18 years of marriage.
We also have one widow, and one happily remarried couple (retired) such that
the husband's son and his ex-wife come bringing the granddaughter to visit.
Around the corner is a very stable male couple.
Next to my apartment is a male couple who have been there since before 1985.
My upstairs neighbor remained friends with her first girlfriend after they
decided they could not live together, and eventually bought a house with her
second girlfriend and her daughter.
There is probably a stable homosexual homeowner couple on nearly every block
in my neighborhood. They stay around a lot longer than the average couple.
Unspecified 'couple' = heterosexual.
On the street where I am building there is also an unmarried couple who seem
very happy together taking apart their house. And one 'normal' couple in
their forties with two young kids plus a new young couple who moved in and
have two kids.
Judging from a very small statistical group, homosexuals keep their houses
up especially nicely and do a lot of gardening. I forgot the two women across
the street with the big community vegetable garden to whom we gave our
pressure canner. They give us tomato plants. They have been together 20
years or so living all over the country, sometimes with relatives.
I think Bruce's problem is that all of his neighbors and co-workers are
heterosexual so he can only go on prejudices instead of personal experience.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 150:
|
Jul 26 18:36 UTC 2003 |
Re #79: it is the very essence of evolution that adaptive mutations *tend*
to be accumulated, but that in no ways rules out the continued existence
of non-adaptive features. Evolution is of species, not individuals, so
their evolution will always have a large number of non-adaptive features
present at low levels. In fact, those non-adaptive genes function as
reservoirs of variety that may in fact provide an adaptive feature when
circumstances change.
Homosexual love is non-adaptive from the standpoint of reproduction, but
causes no species non-adaptiveness, since there are enough reproducing
individuals that the nonreproducing ones do not have any affect.
|
janc
|
|
response 85 of 150:
|
Jul 26 19:33 UTC 2003 |
Re #79: What do you mean we haven't given nature time enough to deal with
this behavior? Do you think homosexuality is new? Or even confined to
humans?
What if everyone was gay? Yes that would be a problem (assuming you mean
so strongly gay that they never are willing to have sex with the opposite
gender). It would be a much bigger problem if everyone was male. (At least
if everyone was gay they could still have babies by artificial insemination.)
So is maleness "against nature" too? At least if everyone was gay they could
still have babies by artificial insemination.
Frankly, if more people have non-reproductive sex, that can only be good for
the world. There is not a baby shortage in the world today. The fact that
gay sex cannot result in a baby is an argument for it, not against it. When
gay people have babies it is rarely by accident. Rather as a result of a
deep desire to have a child and quite a lot of effort to get one. I'd expect
that statistically children raised by such people would do rather well. I
bet the abortion rate (percent of pregnancies ending in abortoin) among gays
is lower than the general population too.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 86 of 150:
|
Jul 26 22:52 UTC 2003 |
Bruce, you are acting like a putz. I am so sick of this 'liberal vs.
conservative' shit that I am about to puke on a loop. I mean, I
swear, you insist on polarizing certain issues to make centrists and
moderates appear invisible or irrelevant. Now, I'd kindly ask that
you get some consideration, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Geez. You really
like stirring the pot or what?
To further the point-- so twenex says he's bi. Why does that have to
be such a big freaking problem for you? I think we've established
over and over you don't condone or support that sort of lifestyle.
But tell me this: why do so-called champions of good worry their sorry
little heads making sure everyone else knows what they see as the
difference between right and wrong rather than making peaceable
relations with their neighbors and avoiding discontent? "Contention
is of the devil," Jesus said-- but I note that's not in the scriptures
you read. Take it at face value anyway and measure it by the Golden
Rule. You think the ends justify the means?
I can speak on this. I can relate to him. Myself, I just found it
wasn't working for me, so I sought out change-- which I do believe is
possible. But I'm not going to bash folks over the head,
saying, "You're queer, so you're evil, and you must change!" If he's
happy, I say leave him alone. You can accept him without accepting
his decision. If he's unhappy and it doesn't work for him, then maybe
he'll find a way out. But spare the lecture.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 87 of 150:
|
Jul 27 01:01 UTC 2003 |
You're the biggest biggot of them all, jaklumen.
|
bru
|
|
response 88 of 150:
|
Jul 27 02:45 UTC 2003 |
"I do not deny them the right to vote.
I do not deny them the right to own property.
I do not deny them the right to free association.
I do not deny them the right to a job of their choosing."
show me my discrimination. Go ahead. Look at the above statements and show
my how I discriminate against them.
Problem is people, you are just so quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream;
"Look at the bigot. Look at the bigot!" that you do not realize that I am
middle of the road.
"SURPRISE!"
What? you don't believe me? How do I prove it? Intorduce you to my gay
freinds? (I have had gay freinds.) I know. You don't believe it.
Am I to condescending to the gay people in the forum for you to believe it?
Well, you apparently think you are better than me, is it okay if I think I
am better than you?
I believe diversity is a good thing, but not when you rub someones face in
it. You insult me siggesting I have a fear of gays that is obviously hiding
my true gayness. Problem is, gays don't scare me.
So just go ahead and call me an old stick in the mud. Wait! Does that
suggest gayness? Nah!
|
dcat
|
|
response 89 of 150:
|
Jul 27 02:49 UTC 2003 |
It's not the fact that you're a stick in the mud that bothers me. It's not
even the fact that you're so *offensively* stuck that bothers me. It's the
fact that you don't seem to care about how much you offend, the fact that
you'd rather say "okay! i offend people! but guess what? i don't give a
shit!" than try to learn why you are offensive and maybe even become less so.
The fact that you may be "middle of the road" does not mean anything, beyond
the fact that the rest of society are bigots, too.
|
keesan
|
|
response 90 of 150:
|
Jul 27 03:59 UTC 2003 |
Bruce, in case it is not yet clear, what is offending people is your statement
about being sorry to hear someone is bisexual. It's like being sorry to hear
they are missing one leg. Why do you have to be sorry, and if you are, why
do you have to say so?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 150:
|
Jul 27 07:07 UTC 2003 |
I'm sorry that bru can't just accept people as they are, without passing
judgements (as long as they are decent law-abiding individuals).
|
twenex
|
|
response 92 of 150:
|
Jul 27 12:53 UTC 2003 |
Re responses #86 and #87-91. thanks
Y'all will notice I haven't contributed much to this thread lately. This is
because I find such arguments boring and pointless.
I am also *deeply* offended by the suggestion that something that should be
private, between two consulting adults, can or even should be banned. We
aren't talking child abuse here people; we aren't talking rape, male rape or
sheep shagging.
I suspect that I would feel this way even if i were not bisexual, because it
is only recently that i have been able to admit this to my self. It is
probably also because I like to stick up for people who are underprivileged,
which probably has a lot to do with being in (quite a few) minority groups
myself - sexually, politically, physically, and in terms of my interests (i'm
sure a lot of us can relate to that one!).
What people who are against homosexuality forgt is that in several periods
in history, homesexuality has been respected and even revered; attitudes to
homosexuality, as with everything else, change and while i have no right to
insist that people be ok with homosexuality, i'm not going to back down
because it offends them. I don't insist on doing it in their presence, i don't
ask them to be willing 'victims'. I *do* insist that i be allowed to live my
life the way i wish to live it. If the gay lobby were insisting that straight
people were somehow weird and that heterosexuality should be banned, (a) i
would have a problem with that and (b) Bruce and his 'compatriots' would have
something to whinge about in my eyes as well as his own. It is interesting
that those who insist on people living their lives a certain way are often
those who get uppity about things like "personal freedoms" or, in Europe
"national sovereignty". They don't seem to have a problem with other people
being told to live their lives a certain way.
I despise this mindset. I have a right to despise it. It's the kind of
mindset that visited the Inquisition on Spain, Fascism on Europe and cultural
imperialism on the world.
It's the One Ring to Rule them All mentality. And it stinks.
Bru says that he:
Does not deny homosexuals the right to vote;
Does not deny them the right to own property;
Does not deny them the right to free association;
Does not deny them the right to a job of their own choosing.
But who is to say he would not *like* to do this? Because this *just* the kind
of thing that happens when a country is ruled soley by fascist bigoted
arseholes like him. That is why we have democracy and free speech, Bruce, not
so that jurassic tyrannosaurs like you, who think that being in a position
of authority gives them a right to act like Himmler and impose your views on
everyone else, can drone on incessantly about how x y and z are evil and wrong
(and you'd better invent a few more etters of the alphabet too, because 26
is *way* too few to categorize all their hangups with).
I'm not particularly interested in whether you think I'm abnormal. I have had
this all my life, for one reason or another, so it's a case of get used to
it or let it upset you every time. And if I did that, I probably wouldn't be
alive anymore.
I don't necessarily want you to be all comfortable with the idea. It is of
no consequence to me whether you are or not.
Because the truth is, we who just try and live our lives without hurting
anyone and try (not always successfully) to let people live as they want to
live are as sick and tired of you moralistic, small-minded, reactionary,
socially-restricted, jingoistic fascist bitches as you are of us. The
diference being, I know of no liberal, democratic state that has ever tried
to wipe any of *you* out. So take your opinions, Mr I'm Such A BigWig Because
I'm A Customs Inspector
Ooh-What-A-Big-Firearm-You-'ve-Got-All-The-Better-To-Shoot-You-With-Foreign-Li
beral-Faggot and stick them somewhere. Your arse would be a good place.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 93 of 150:
|
Jul 27 18:16 UTC 2003 |
rotflmao!
|
tod
|
|
response 94 of 150:
|
Jul 27 18:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 95 of 150:
|
Jul 27 19:21 UTC 2003 |
Errata - 88 to 91, not 87; i don't believe jaklumen is a bigot, so sorry for
the confusion.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 96 of 150:
|
Jul 27 20:57 UTC 2003 |
I appreciate it. I've been there, and to an extent, I am still
there. I need not deny how I feel, although I have made a rather
different decision about it.
resp:88 'middle of the road'? Don't insult me. I consider myself
fairly moderate; much consideration finds me at that position there
again and again. If you're going to whine about 'conservatism vs.
liberalism,' particularly how liberals repress conservatives, then I
hardly believe you a moderate. Stop fronting.
(If you were *really* middle of the road, you'd be bored of the left-
wing and right-wing arguments, wondering why everyone has to polarize
the hell out of everything. You're not fooling anyone.)
|
bru
|
|
response 97 of 150:
|
Jul 28 02:39 UTC 2003 |
well, you see I am tired of th polarization.
I am tired of lilly livered limosine liberals yelling about the rich
conservatives spending money to support conservative causes while they swill
their champagne and toot their own hoern about how they care more about the
common man thatn any conservative ever could.
I am tired of gay and lesbians rubbing their sexuality in my face by having
marches and gay pride days and exposing genitalia out in front of God and
everybody while they troll the back alleys adn gay bath houses for fresh meat
while claiming all they want is a chance to get married.
I a tired of heterosexuals who see nothing wrong with posing in all kinds of
sexualy explicit positions so they can make a little money of their
pornography before going to the local dope den to get something to get them
high so they can forget what they just did for the last 12 hours.
I am tired of people exploiting children for their own sexual enjoyment, and
claiming that children as young as 2 should be able to experience the joy of
sexual contact and that it does no harm to these children.
I am tired of people who claim to have all the evidence in the world that pot
doesn't hurt you, and then having to talk to emergency personel who have to
clean up the mess when someone whacked on weed, alcohol, or some other drug
they feel should be safe when used responsibly.
I am tired of professors claiming to be open minded banning conservative ideas
becasue they don't want that Fascist crap in their class room.
I am tired of being insulted because I do not agree with everything liberals
think and say.
You ahve got to understand there is a whole wide world out there that does
not agree with everything liberal, or everything conservative, or everything
anything.
And claiming to be open minded while telling me to shut up just does not make
any sense to me.
|
keesan
|
|
response 98 of 150:
|
Jul 28 03:18 UTC 2003 |
Bruce, let me know where to find God so I can parade around naked in front
of him/her.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 99 of 150:
|
Jul 28 06:51 UTC 2003 |
I thought gods could see through clothes.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 100 of 150:
|
Jul 28 08:10 UTC 2003 |
they're prolly pretty bored by now.
|
keesan
|
|
response 101 of 150:
|
Jul 28 13:13 UTC 2003 |
Did God make homosexuals?
|
novomit
|
|
response 102 of 150:
|
Jul 28 13:21 UTC 2003 |
Did homosexuals make god?
|
cross
|
|
response 103 of 150:
|
Jul 28 13:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 104 of 150:
|
Jul 28 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Bru offends, and he doesn't apologise for that. Yet, he's offended by
that whole list of things, and expects people to change
Respect works both ways Bruce.
|
slynne
|
|
response 105 of 150:
|
Jul 28 15:01 UTC 2003 |
re Resp:97 - Gosh where to start...
1) So you think that it is only ok for rich people to have opinions if
they are conservative opinions? You dont think it is possible for rich
people to care about poor people or for our society as a whole?
2) Imagine how many gay and lesbians feel when people rub their
heterosexuality in *their* faces. You probably do that all the time.
Anyhow, fwiw, I have never seen any gay people exposing their genitals
in public but I probably dont frequent the same back alleys and gay
bathhouses as you do.
3) You dont read porn? Please. I could have sword I have heard you make
references to Playboy. Maybe I am mistaken.
4) I know. Child sexual abuse is a big problem. Most liberals will
agree with that. A lot of republicans fuck their kids, btw. This isnt a
problem related to political beliefs.
5) Alcohol is dangerous. There are also dangers associated with pot. It
is however *less* dangerous than alcohol. For one thing, no one has
ever overdosed on pot or at least I have not been able to find a
documented case of that happening. Anyhow, it should be legal as should
most recreational drugs. I always find it interesting that republicans
like to go on about how government needs to stay out of our lives. "We
need a free market. We need lower taxes. Etc." Yet, they feel it is
somehow important to keep a person from sitting on their living room
couch and smoking a doobie.
6) Well, fwiw, I have had a few very conservative professors in my time
too. Also, none of them have ever not allowed me to express my views in
class (assuming that my views were relevant to the subject being
taught, of course).
7) I am sorry that you feel insulted but in a karmic sense, I think you
have it coming. You come online and insult others all the time. Fair's
fair. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it. I think
your problem is that you typically dish out arguments that are not
thought out well, have huge holes in them and then you get mad when
people shoot them down.
|
tod
|
|
response 106 of 150:
|
Jul 28 16:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|